|
Very interesting article, Thati 
Anyway, I know it might sound arrogant, but either this study has some subtle fallacies, or there are details the article didn't mention.
Here are the main problems I found:
| quote: | | Reiman and his colleagues suggest that the Chinese language’s simple way of describing numbers may make native speakers less reliant on language processing when doing maths. For example, “eleven” is “ten one” in Chinese “twenty-one” is “two ten one”. |
What they seem to forget, in this statement, is that English numerals behave exactly like Chinese numerals most of the time - the difference being that English is less regular in numbers smaller than one hundred, and there's actually a reason for that: they're more common, so they're the ones that went through more severe phonetic changes.
For example:| Number | Chinese | English |
| 2,500 | Two thousand five hundred | Two thousand and five hundred |
| 2,503 | Two thousand five hundred three | Two thousand five hundred and three |
| 41 | Four ten one | Forty one |
You can clearly see that, above 100, the difference is minimal. In fact, one cannot ignore the fact that "forty" comes from "four + ty" where "ty = group of ten" when comparing, so it is similar to Chinese after all (thirty and twenty aren't exceptions, there's just a phonetic change). In the end, both languages see "40" as being "four groups of tens".
| quote: | | The native language you speak may determine how your brain solves mathematical puzzles, according to a new study. Brain scans have revealed that Chinese speakers rely more on visual regions than English speakers when comparing numbers and doing sums. |
If anything, the alphabet would be the cause behind this, but it's not reasonable to link this difference to spoken language. Even the writing system itself might not be that different depending on how one interprets the words. I can't think of an example in English-Chinese right now, so I'm resorting to Japanese-Portuguese:
Aero + Porto = Aeroporto
空 + 港 = 空港
The same way "空" (sky) and "港" (port/harbour) can be seen as unities of meaning, so can "aero" and "porto". As a matter of fact, if you write "Haeroporto" (which sounds exactly the same way), people won't recognise the meaning because of the letter "H"... the same thing would happen if you wrote "空港" as "究港" - therefore, the visual aspect of comprehension plays an extremely similar role in both languages, even if the sounds are similar (Japanese is known to rely on ideograms because of its large number of homophones).
| quote: | They also note that the use of the abacus in many Asian schools may encourage the brains of students in this region to think spatially and visually about numbers.
(...)
“The results do suggest that learning to read in a particular way - or more generally, the cultural differences associated with different language groups - may have an impact in other cognitive domains, in this case arithmetic processing,” comments neuroscientist Barry Horwitz of the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders in Bethesda, Maryland, US. |
There seems to be a confusion between language, culture and teaching methods here. With all these factors being present, you can't just downplay their roles, and claim that it's a difference based on language alone.
As I recall it, this "thought <-> language" dependence, as explained by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, has been proven as false already, but I'm saying this based on what I've been told (I should research in order to confirm this).
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|